who connected his own age with that, if not of the Apostles, yet of Apostolic men.  Pothinus, bishop of Lyons, whom he succeeded, was more than ninety years old at the time of his martyrdom in the persecution of A.D. 177 [Endnote 326:2], and would thus in his boyhood be contemporary with the closing years of the last Evangelist.  Irenaeus also had before him a number of writings—­some, e.g. the works of the Marcosians, in addition to those that have been discussed in the course of this work—­in which our Gospels are largely quoted, and which, to say the least, were earlier than his own time of writing.

Clement of Alexandria began to flourish, ([Greek:  egnorizeto]) [Endnote 327:1], in the reign of Commodus (180-190 A.D.), and had obtained a still wider celebrity as head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria in the time of Severus [Endnote 327:2] (193- 211).  The opinions therefore to which he gives expression in his works of this date were no doubt formed at a earlier period.  He too appeals to the tradition of which he had been himself a recipient.  He speaks of his teachers, ’those blessed and truly memorable men,’ one in Greece, another in Magna Graecia, a third in Coele-Syria, a fourth in Egypt, a fifth in Assyria, a sixth in Palestine, to whom the doctrine of the Apostles had been handed down from father to son [Endnote 327:3].

Tertullian is still bolder.  In his controversy with Marcion he confidently claims as on his side the tradition of the Apostolic Churches.  By it is guaranteed the Gospel of St. Luke which he is defending, and not only that, but the other Gospels [Endnote 327:4].  In one passage Tertullian even goes so far as to send his readers to the Churches of Corinth, Philippi, &c. for the very autographs (’authenticae literae’) of St. Paul’s Epistles [Endnote 327:5].  But this is merely a characteristic flourish of rhetoric.  All for which the statements of Tertullian may safely be said to vouch is, that the Gospels had held their ‘prerogative’ position within his memory and that of most members of the Church to which he belonged.

But the evidence of the Fathers is most decisive when it is unconscious.  That the Gospels as used by the Christian writers at the end of the first century, so far from being of recent composition, had already a long history behind them, is nothing less than certain.  At this date they exhibit a text which bears the marks of frequent transcription and advanced corruption.  ‘Origen’s,’ says Dr. Scrivener [Endnote 328:1], ’is the highest name among the critics and expositors of the early Church; he is perpetually engaged in the discussion of various readings of the New Testament, and employs language in describing the then state of the text, which would be deemed strong if applied even to its present condition with the changes which sixteen more centuries must needs have produced ...  Respecting the sacred autographs, their fate or their continued existence, he seems to